[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Ray Saintonge]

K P wrote:
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>   
>> Sheldon Rampton wrote
>>     
>>> LOL. I didn't realize that the idea of "attack sites" could be
>>> extended to refer to anyone who attacks ANYONE.
>>>       
>> "Attack site" is a really useless piece of terminology (up there with "wheel war"). It shortcircuits thought. What this is about is trash biography, baiting and bullying. I hope the case at least clarifies thoughts on this.
>>     
> Usefule comment, Charles.  I ahave a hard time seeing that these trash
> sites could or should be linked on Wikipedia at all.  I delete3 links
> to other much better sites thatt aren't classified as attack sites all
> of the time.  Unless it's an article about a famous trash biography
> site, what is it doing on Wikipedia as a link in the first place?  Or
> war we diswcussing userpage links or something else?  LP
No doubt. Quietly removing junk links is not the same as having a big 
fuss over whether the same links should be aggressively blocked.    When 
one of these junk links is restored a wise admin will consider whether 
it might be worthwhile to wait a week or a month before trying the 
deletion again.  The current debate takes things to another level.  I 
certainly doubt that the large number of Wikipedians advocating a 
moderate approach in this thread would ever spend time adding the kinds 
of links that are sought to be blocked.  They are not out to do harm to 
Wikipedia or any of its editors; where they disagree with each other 
they know when to stop (usually).

One would expect that sooner or later that those pursuing a 
vendetta-like hard line would get the point.

Ec